 |
I surveyed a number of postings for "Critique my website" in a certain online forum. Most of what I found was either hilarious, amusing, or probably worthless. Too many script kiddies think that simply providing Yet-Another-Clone-Of-Affiliate-Data-Feed will lead them to riches. A critique that just remixing data from a feed probably isn't enough to create what is commonly considered as "Content", and noticing some information that seemed to be against the TOS (but perhaps aren't anymore) caused another member to decide that I was merely someone else's alternate ego, and account that the other uses to carry on conversations with himself in the forum. Sigh |
Wow it's amazing how much some things here never change. I haven't visited here in years, I had no idea confusing me for Wes, Em2pr2dr2c3po4r2d2, Ian, Sam, ShopForSpam, or whoever, would happen so quickly. I hope that Hopefully Harold is never counted on as any kind of expert witness about judging whether one person could be responsible for wildly different writings, although it would be mildly amusing to watch a real expert use only a rudimentary knowledge of statistics and linguistics to rip Hopefully Harold's theories apart. Then again, maybe Hopefully Harold is just whoever in another form, trying to discredit me.
ded, Hopefully Harold has given you some ok advice (ask Associates), and some bad advice (ask for advice and then ignore the others who don't agree with him.) Let's hope you accidentally ignored him, and are not missing out on the following hint.
Asking the Associates workers about your site is no guarantee to get good advice. If they don't happen to notice a page that shows a problem, they might tell you that things are OK when they are not. The wrong advice direct from the associates program wont keep you out of trouble if they later notice a problem. The better advice is to read over the operating agreement
for yourself, and be really sure of it's contents. You might read it over with a trusted friend who is an engineer, a law student, or even better a real lawyer. Nothing any of us says can substitute for that.
BTW, the OA is not the end of what you need to read. Since you're writing a Java program that is using AWS (or maybe scraping amazon directly), you need to be familiar with the agreements that cover which ever services you are using. There are different ones for every service you might use. For example you might need to look at the AWS ECS agreement.
In just a short time of visiting different threads last night, I've seen long timers give advice to others of how they violate 5.1.10. If you've written your own java code, you might decide that 5.1.18 applies. There are a number of other rules that some may have forgotten about, or are quietly ignoring, or that might have changed. For example, in the past, I think there were restrictions against reusing third party copyrighted material that occurs within Amazon, however, I didn't immediately find that reference in the current agreements.
So the final advice is to re-read the agreements from time to time, and make sure you're still in compliance, or maybe find out about new things you can do. You might even want to keep your own offline copies of these agreements that you've agreed to.
Of course, you might also consider these ideas just to be spam of someone's alternate identity, just like Hopefully Harold. Did you consider that Hopefully Harold might just be another of Wes's, or ImNotEm2Pr2C3PO4r2d2, or Ian's, or Sam's, or ShopForPowerSpam's, or whoever's alternate identity, and they are just trying to discredit me so you'll spend more time listening to them? In which case it's kind of silly to come here asking for advice if you're not prepared to be able to judge for yourself without relying on "ignore" filters.
